UNITED PROCESSORS Vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SANKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.Raveendran, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.N.R.Jayaprathap, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent, and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) The Respondent by Order Nos. TNGST 3223580 / 2002-03 dated 23.03.2018, TNGST 3223580 / 2003-2004 dated 23.03.2018 and TNGST 3223580 / 2004-2005 dated 07.05.2018 had re-assessed the liability of the tax in connection with the use of chemicals in printing works for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TNGST Act' for short) in respect of the Petitioner, who had received the copies of those orders on 15.05.2018, 14.04.2018 and 14.05.2018 respectively. The Petitioner was entitled to prefer appeal against those orders under Section 31 of TNGST Act, within a period of 30 days from the date of their receipt before the Appellate Authority, who has been empowered to condone delay in filing such appeal for an extended period of 30 days, if sufficient cause for not preferring appeal within that period is made out. However, the Petitioner did not prefer any such appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed these Writ Petitions on 03.10.2018 challenging the orders passed by the Respondent beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of those orders.

(3.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Order dated 06.05.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 2413 of 2020) has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. A factual distinction is sought to be made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner for restricting the applicability of that binding decision only to the cases where appeal had been preferred before the Appellate Authority but declined to be entertained as time-barred, unlike the present one in which the Petitioner has directly approached this Court to challenge the impugned order after the maximum period of limitation for filing appeal has lapsed. It is not possible to accept the said contention inasmuch as a person, who has preferred appeal before the Statutory Authority, cannot be more blameworthy than one who has not at all preferred such appeal. The obvious rationale behind the governing dictum is that where the maximum period of limitation prescribed in the statute for preferring appeal against an order before the Appellate Authority has lapsed, it is not permissible to circumvent the legislative intent manifested in that bar created by resorting to thereafter invoke the discretionary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is immaterial whether or not such time-barred appeal had been preferred to the Appellate Authority before filing of the Writ Petition.